ILNews

Opinions Jan. 17, 2013

January 17, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana
15A01-1110-CR-550
Criminal. Reverses convictions and sentences for intimidation of Dr. Edward Connor and intimidation of Heidi Humphrey and remands with instructions to vacate, which does not alter Daniel Brewington’s aggregate sentence. Affirms conviction for intimidation of Judge James Humphrey and for attempted obstruction of justice relating to Connor. Affirms in all other respects.

Steven A. Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Community, Inc., a/k/a Congregation Beth Shalom, Paul Eisenberg, Judith Rose, Sarah Wasserman, Lynne Foster Shifriss, and Roberta "Didi" Kerler
53A01-1207-CT-315
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Ballaban’s motion to correct error and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bloomington Jewish Community Inc. and other appellees on his complaint after he was fired as rabbi for Beth Shalom. Finds evidence supporting the ruling that the ministerial exception applies. Denies appellees’ request for attorney fees. Judges Vaidik and Bailey concur in result in separate opinions.  

Kyle W. Dixon v. Ara J. Dixon
34A05-1206-DR-303
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting the notice of intent to relocate filed by Ara Dixon. The mother’s intent to relocate was made in good faith and not in haste, and father would be able to maintain virtually the same parenting time schedule.

Marilyn Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-457
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and battery.

B.B., Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1205-JV-228
Juvenile.  Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for having committed what would be Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal if committed by an adult.

Jeff Clade v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1206-CT-509
Civil tort.  Grants rehearing to clarify original opinion and affirms, in which the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Hunt on a negligence claim. Judge Riley would deny rehearing.

Steven Newville v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1205-CR-379
Criminal. Affirms Class A felony conviction of attempted rape.

Garrick P. Twiford, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1205-CR-284
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT